[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140513094737.GU30445@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 11:47:37 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Michael wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [ISSUE] sched/cgroup: Does cpu-cgroup still works fine nowadays?
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:34:43AM +0800, Michael wang wrote:
> During our testing, we found that the cpu.shares doesn't work as
> expected, the testing is:
>
/me zaps all the kvm nonsense as that's non reproducable and only serves
to annoy.
Pro-tip: never use kvm to report cpu-cgroup issues.
> So is this results expected (I really do not think so...)?
>
> Or that imply the cpu-cgroup got some issue to be fixed?
So what I did (WSM-EP 2x6x2):
mount none /cgroup -t cgroup -o cpu
mkdir -p /cgroup/a
mkdir -p /cgroup/b
mkdir -p /cgroup/c
echo $$ > /cgroup/a/tasks ; for ((i=0; i<12; i++)) ; do A.sh & done
echo $$ > /cgroup/b/tasks ; for ((i=0; i<12; i++)) ; do B.sh & done
echo $$ > /cgroup/c/tasks ; for ((i=0; i<12; i++)) ; do C.sh & done
echo 2048 > /cgroup/c/cpu.shares
Where [ABC].sh are spinners:
---
#!/bin/bash
while :; do :; done
---
for i in A B C ; do ps -deo pcpu,cmd | grep "${i}\.sh" | awk '{t += $1} END {print t}' ; done
639.7
629.8
1127.4
That is of course not perfect, but it's close enough.
Now you again.. :-)
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists